next »

[Bandages]

I don't see how anything you said has anything to do with QTEs. It's about branching narrative in response to simple actions, control timing, and consequences.

Quick time events are simple actions with controlled timing that have direct consequences based on user input. I don't see how you could say I said nothing to do with QTEs. They are all quintessential parts of the QTE. Sure, a QTE isn't the only way of dealing with that, but they're still entirely relevant. Please try to be more open-minded in our further dialogues. I can tell you have a problem with QTEs, but being contrary without regards to what is actually being said won't help either of us understand game design more.

Imagine how much better the game would be if all of those actions were bound to buttons/directions in a character-familiar logical context context instead of flashed on the screen like someone yelling "you're doing this now".

The game would be the same game, only certain buttons would have permanent context instead of immediate context. You'd certainly have to memorize more, because there would be (if I'm understanding you correctly) a consistent control scheme, instead of always being on your toes, so to speak. Now, I can only speak for myself, but as I've said the MOST FUN thing about the game was that feeling of risk and the incredibly fast moving action sequences. When I was in that mindset of OH SHIT ONCOMING TRAFFIC SWERVE SWERVE I didn't really care that I was pressing circle then square instead of the designated RIGHT FOOT + TURN HANDS button combo. The means for which my actions were made were inconsequential. In fact, I believe if I was forced to recall those buttons on the fly instead of being given a visceral readout, I would have a higher chance to fail and be frustrated, as it would have taken me out of the immersion of OH SHIT WHATDOIDO and brought me into "which buttons do what again??? was it square square cirCLOHSHIT"

The real issue here is I'm failing to see why the game telling me what to do is bad. Your argument is REALLY unclear. What I'm extrapolating, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you prefer a sense of order in a game. It needs to have a logical control scheme in order to be better. The fact that Heavy Rain uses QTEs that utilize players pressing buttons is bothersome to you because you feel slighted by someone telling you what to do in a game if it seems random.

To this (potentially strawman - help me out) argument, I say that it really didn't matter. It really doesn't matter. The game isn't about putting your left foot in, taking it out, and doing the hokey pokey. It's about fast-paced stimulus response to grip the player and give them a really visceral sense of tension and speed. The QTE structure lends itself well to this because of its quick method of delivering and resolving information. Think of it as Simon says if that helps. You can't say Simon says isn't a game because there's no consistent Simon scheme. If Simon says hop on one foot you better hop on one fucking foot or you're OUT. It'd be boring if Simon had a flowchart and you had to deduce what Simon wants you to do from memory of the Simon System tm or else you'd be out. Fast paced games don't need structured rules, they need thematic rules.

The serious inherent flaw in QTEs is that they give you fake freedom instead of real freedom, which is the whole point of a video game. Input based on the player.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. The last thing games are about is freedom. Freedom can be utilized BY a game as a method of having fun, but fun is always the end goal. Freedom is never the final objective, and if you make a game that isn't fun at all but gives you a lot of choices, then why even play it?

And what about QTEs take away from freedom? You have the freedom to respond or not to the call of the QTE. What if I don't WANT to cut my finger off. I can choose to not press the buttons. Choice. Player input. What about if I don't want to win a fist fight? I have that freedom. There's nothing fake about it. Performing a QTE isn't any less free than performing a jump to access a risky shortcut in a racing game.

So if you could respond the to these points, I think I might glean a little more understanding into what is currently a very murky argument against QTEs.

[s0]

The plot gets good on the second half of the game when there's a lot of action sequences, but until then there's a bunch of useless interactive scenes that could be just be told through non-interactive movies and wouldn't be so tedious and ridiculous.

I played through the entire thing. The plot is convoluted as fuck and has gigantic holes. It's also full of generic crime drama bullshit. This is supposed to be a "serious, mature" videogame? lol

[EdgeOfProphecy]

The plot gets good on the second half of the game when there's a lot of action sequences, but until then there's a bunch of useless interactive scenes that could be just be told through non-interactive movies and wouldn't be so tedious and ridiculous.

I played through the entire thing. The plot is convoluted as fuck and has gigantic holes. It's also full of generic crime drama bullshit. This is supposed to be a "serious, mature" videogame? lol

I've been watching videos of the gameplay (if it can be called that), and lordy the dialog is bad.  I will also agree that the plot is absurd.

I think the game was exceedingly well marketed.  I remember when it was in development there was a lot of teasing, lots of whispers about how it was the next generation of storytelling.  I remember the media crowing about how video games were finally getting a masterprice, a breath of fresh air from your Halos and Gears of War, an intelligent game with a serious plot starring normal people.

But it's just a bad M. Night Shyamalan movie.  It was certainly different from what most people had seen of video games, and if you're able to scream loud enough that something's "good" then you release something that's "different", people won't know what to believe and they'll trust you.

[Bandages]

Discussion of whether or not Heavy Rain is "A bad M. Night Shyamalan movie" has absolutely zero to due with Quick Time Events.

You can validate your self-indulgent opinions of literary tastes somewhere else. This is about game design, and specifically the use of Quick Time Events as a method of gameplay.

[EdgeOfProphecy]

Fair enough.

I've heard the philosophy before that "movies are movies, games are games.  Let movies be movies, let games be games, don't mix the two."

The reasoning behind this is that movies and games have an irreconcilably difference.

Movies are passive entertainment.  You sit there and watch.  Absorbing the story, and the experience of watching, is what you're supposed to do.  You're free to interpret, but you cannot change the film.  It is made and it is static.

Games are active entertainment.  The player is not just audience, they are a component in the active creation of the experience.  Without the player, there is no game, just software that doesn't do anything.

Some people have suggested that cutscenes of any ilk are bad, and that the player should always be in control of the character.  If you want to watch cutscenes, go watch a movie.  Games should be about interaction and agency, and weakening that is bad.

Personally, I'm not convinced that cutscenes are bad, or that games and movies should never mix, but I do think they're tricky to get right.  Cutscenes are good for providing context, and delivering a very specific experience to the player.  However, I don't think they should be used for wholesale narrative dumps, and that many stories can benefit from gameplay and cutscene being interwoven.  More like "gameplay with a side of exposition" than "sit tight and watch a 5 minute movie."

QTE's try to merge gameplay and movie together, but only end up botching the strong suits of both mediums.  They prevent the player from experiencing the movie as a movie by invading the crafted nature of film and demanding the player's attention.  No longer can the player be the passive audience and enjoy the experience.  The trade off is that you get some really shallow, arbitrary gameplay.  Waggle this thing, press that button, jiggle this joystick.  Demanding someone's attention, making them perform a task, does not mean you are engaging them.  If the task is thoughtless and arbitrary, there is no way for the player to make any meaningful choices, or experience any meaningful challenge, and thus the experience is largely wasted.

You're just left with a movie that can't be enjoyed, and a segment of gameplay that's boring.

Again, I'm not opposed to cinematic moments of gameplay, or having narrative occur during gameplay.  I'm not a gigantic fan of moving from cutscene->gameplay->cutscene->gameplay either.  If you're going to make an "interactive cutscene" though, make the gameplay just as good as the rest of the game.  If you do, you no longer have a QTE and have what a QTE wants to be, and arguably, something useful for the game's experience.

[s0]

Discussion of whether or not Heavy Rain is "A bad M. Night Shyamalan movie" has absolutely zero to due with Quick Time Events.

You can validate your self-indulgent opinions of literary tastes somewhere else. This is about game design, and specifically the use of Quick Time Events as a method of gameplay.

you know, qtes kinda remind me of bad michael bay movies...

[EdgeOfProphecy]

Discussion of whether or not Heavy Rain is "A bad M. Night Shyamalan movie" has absolutely zero to due with Quick Time Events.

You can validate your self-indulgent opinions of literary tastes somewhere else. This is about game design, and specifically the use of Quick Time Events as a method of gameplay.

you know, qtes kinda remind me of bad michael bay movies...

If the CoD series was rife with QTE's it would be a bad Michael Bay film.  Instead, it's just, "Michael Bay Presents:  Michael Bay: The Movie: The Game: Part 4: Gold Edition", which I'm actually ok with.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

It was certainly different from what most people had seen of video games, and if you're able to scream loud enough that something's "good" then you release something that's "different", people won't know what to believe and they'll trust you.

i think this has two applications/corollaries you may be missing and/or uncomfortable with:

1) if millions of people can be deluded into thinking a game is good, and enjoying/loving it, even when it is not good, then in a sense the game actually *is* good, because they are getting enjoyment out of it, even though they were "tricked" into enjoying it

2) if millions of people can be deluded into thinking a game is good, then it may also be true that *some* (if not all) of the games that you personally believe to be good are actually not good, and that you're enjoying them just because you were tricked into it. because if being able to fool someone into enjoying something that they should not enjoy is possible, you can't say that you're immune to it and that those millions of others are not

the alternative theory is, of course, that different people have different tastes, and might enjoy something that you don't enjoy

[s0]

inb4 "millions of people eat at mcdonalds/voted for hitler/etc."

[DavidCaruso]

Wait, Heavy Rain as a fast-paced visceral action game? Of all the things to call it? I've played a lot of games where I've had a feeling of risk, tension, and speed, and Heavy Rain doesn't come close to that list. Part of that is due to knowing that on a lot of the QTEs, none of my choices actually matter because, well, I can't actually fail and the game will probably go on a same/similar narrative branch anyway even if I don't complete it. Another part of that is how simplistic the actual action sequences are, and how most of them aren't very hard to execute anyway. Yet another part is not being very invested at all in the game's narrative, which was supposedly the entire point of making the actual game so simple in the first place; I don't think there's anything "self-indulgent" in saying the story is bad. At least from what I played, it was like a mishmash of character tropes and plot devices the developers had seen in crime movies and police procedural TV shows all mixed together in the hopes that it would create something cohesive. Heat this ain't. (Or even Zodiac.)

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

inb4 "millions of people eat at mcdonalds/voted for hitler/etc."

i think the difference is that those people recognize that what they do / did was bad. the millions of people who eat at mcdonalds don't believe it's healthy to do so. some of the millions of people who voted for hitler regret it after they saw what they got. but the millions of people who played through heavy rain don't regret it (as far as i know), so it's not really comparable

but i actually haven't played heavy rain and have no opinion about it. all i'm saying is that it's easy to say 'millions of people are wrong about what they enjoy' and harder to say 'maybe they see something in the game i don't'

[s0]

Wait, Heavy Rain as a fast-paced visceral action game? Of all the things to call it?

Not sure what this is a reply to but: Fast paced and visceral? No. Action game? Yes.


also i regret playing through heavy rain.

[DavidCaruso]

Wait, Heavy Rain as a fast-paced visceral action game? Of all the things to call it?

Not sure what this is a reply to but: Fast paced and visceral? No. Action game? Yes.

Was replying to Castle's posts from last page. Probably should have quoted them lol.

[EdgeOfProphecy]

It was certainly different from what most people had seen of video games, and if you're able to scream loud enough that something's "good" then you release something that's "different", people won't know what to believe and they'll trust you.

i think this has two applications/corollaries you may be missing and/or uncomfortable with:

1) if millions of people can be deluded into thinking a game is good, and enjoying/loving it, even when it is not good, then in a sense the game actually *is* good, because they are getting enjoyment out of it, even though they were "tricked" into enjoying it

Strong sales and good reviews mean that a product is successful, that it has sufficiently met the expectations of the media and consumers.  It is not an absolute indicator of product quality.  There are fantastic products that never get moved, because they have no market.

People need two things before they can by a product.

1)  Knowledge of its existence.
2)  Will to purchase the product.

You can't buy something if you don't know it even exists, and you won't buy something you don't want.  Marketing exists to bolster both of these consumer needs, and good marketing can work wonders.

"New and different" is a fantastic marketing hook.  If you can convince people that something is innovative, you have a couple things going for you.

1)  You limit their scope of comparison to other products.  If someone presents to you a mousetrap, you have a whole wealth of mousetraps to compare them to.  If someone presents to you a magical wand that kills mice, you can't make direct comparisons.  It becomes more difficult to judge the worthiness/unworthiness of the product.  In such times, trusted opinions and the word of media outlets can be highly effective, since it is in a time of uncertainty that the consumer is most impressionable.

2)  New and shiny is attractive to consumers.  Everyone loves to be on the cutting edge, everyone loves to be a hipster.

2) if millions of people can be deluded into thinking a game is good, then it may also be true that *some* (if not all) of the games that you personally believe to be good are actually not good, and that you're enjoying them just because you were tricked into it. because if being able to fool someone into enjoying something that they should not enjoy is possible, you can't say that you're immune to it and that those millions of others are not

Yeah, I'm human.  So what?  Marketing works, that's why people spend more on it than making the game.  It would be hubris to think I'm above marketing, and I know I fall into it.

Or I could be a pretentious douche who's furiously pounding on my Macbook Pro while sipping my Grande Mocha Latte in Starbucks trying to decry successful games that I think "aren't art" but the plebeian masses embrace.

Who knows?

Regardless, in this context I am talking about "good" in the sense of gameplay mechanics which provide compelling experiences for the player with all the marketing guff and financial success stripped away.  So yes, games as something more than a money making endeavor.  Art, if you will.

*sip*

One interesting note, though, if the assertion that "Heavy Rain's not great" and "Heavy Rain was wildly successful" holds up it could indicate that there's a significant void in the market waiting to be filled.  Perhaps it was successful because people were in love with the idea it embodied.  A compelling, mature narrative married to the interactive depth of a video game does sound pretty sweet.  There could be some serious room for a game to step up to the plate and fill that void for consumers.

[unsilentwill]

@CA, Eres, EdgeO: Guys does this have to happen every single time in the Design thread... We're trying to talk about QTE's, go to PM or something okay?

Wow, uh, Castle we disagree severely about what games are best at. I'll give it a shot, because despite some hostility you seem to want to sort this out.

The basis of my argument, which is not a strawman nor a troll, were the words "character-familiar logical context". Which because I'm bad with words basically means immersion, or something kind of similar. Memorization and learning controls is an important part of the game because it allows you to orient yourself in a game world and fairly quickly be able to move naturally. When you have the surprise things flashing on screen its like the game choses the worst possible time to teach you the controls, like you never knew how to dodge until just the moment you need to know how. That throws out the time other games have where you learn, control, finesse, and master an ability. In RE4 you already know how to run, but suddenly a different control appears on screen and turns you from you being your character to you the gamer.

Simon is a game, don't get me wrong. But video games have archived a much stronger system of interaction that allows for agency.

And as to games not being about freedom, it's really hard to wrap my head around that. Books, music, movies, plays, paintings are not about freedom. You're confusing video games with roller coasters and theme park rides. Games have as much freedom as they have buttons for actions. Heavy Rain is like being on a B-Movie Drama Swan boat, where to change the story you press a button to go on a different track. Where QTE's restrict freedom is by showing you a challenge and saying "THIS IS HOW YOU SOLVE THE IT" and with one or two buttons you go behind specific cover, use a specific weapon, shoot them in a specific part of the body a specific number or times. All of the decisions in a cutscene or QTE are ones I want to make on my own. When I jump on a cyclops maybe I want to cut off his head then drop a bomb down his neck, but it says no you are stabbing him in the eye.

QTEs simplify the player's forethought, preparation, planning, choice, skill, to "Can you read" and "can you read fast enough" while completely discarding agency all for what it forces you to think is a better cinematic experience than what you could have done.

And please don't call be biased or close minded, the only bias I have is that I've played Dungeons and Dragons where I am free to do anything I want, and if one day we had a session where the DM brought out a Simon and said if you beat this you beat the game, I'd never go back. Of course games don't have as much freedom as DnD, but when well designed the thing I want to do and the things (PLURAL) the designer allows me to do should jive well.

What I think we can agree on is that games should have branching paths and real life consequences to actions.

[EdgeOfProphecy]

Sorry Silent.

When I was in school, some of my professors would use "Interactive Fiction" to describe things that are kind of like games but not really.

There's an old arcade game called Dragon's Lair that consists pretty much entirely of QTE's.  I'm not really sure I'd consider that a video game.  I think there's a certain amount of complexity and abstraction that video games need to have to be what people would usually recognize as "video games".  A QTE doesn't really bring that to the table, and is more an element of interactive fiction than video games.

the alternative theory is, of course, that different people have different tastes, and might enjoy something that you don't enjoy

Actually, I'm going to visit this one again.

If we consider Heavy Rain to not be a game, but rather, a piece of Interactive Fiction, it totally changes things.

Much of what makes games good is the sense of agency, the ability to explore systems, the ability to play.  That sort of stuff.  Story and narrative are great, but you can have great games without a narrative at all.

Judging Heavy Rain as a game, well, I don't think it works very well.  However, it did sell and there are people who do like it, so maybe it's not actually a game, but rather, Interactive Fiction.

If it is not a game, then it doesn't have to live up to the expectations of games.  The exploration and execution of meaningful choice (in terms of game mechanics), does not have to be a core criteria for its success.  Rather, Interactive Fiction might have other aspects that take the front seat.  Things like the ability to explore and branch a story, or the ability to give the user some degree of control over the cinematic experience.

Heavy Rain got sold and marketed as a game, which I don't blame people for doing.  Interactive Fiction is not in the vernacular, and no one would have understood what it was if they tried to sell it as such.  It's on a PS3, you use a controller, it has 3D graphics, it's entertainment, I think the majority of people would look at that and go "yep, it's a game."  I think the backlash that people have, me included, is when others are like, "Wow Heavy Rain is a great game!" to which I reply, "What?  No it isn't.  It did all these game design no-nos"

It's quite possibly that Heavy Rain is a perfectly enjoyable media experience, so long as you don't think of it as a game, but as Interactive Fiction.  The QTE's, while they may not be the best idea (I honestly don't know), fit within the goals of Interactive Fiction.

However, I don't think they fit with the goals of video games, and that QTE's should be avoided in video games.

[AshfordPride]

How can anyone view Heavy Rain as anything above an interactive version of The Room?  Jesus Christ, this game makes Tommy Wiseau look human.  The interactions between these monsters barely qualify as a parody of human interaction.  Do you think that the way these people talk, move, act, or look at all feels like something that's not so far deep in the uncanny valley that life has permanently acclimated to the crushing depths such a place provides?  How forgiving do you have to be to let all this shit slide?

Let me not detract too far from the QTEs.  You fail a QTE and all of a sudden it makes your character look like they have something wrong with them.  Why can't an able-bodied man take those groceries?  Pick up his son?  Brush his teeth?  The odd forgiveness of these QTE failings creates a story where, FRIGHTENING CANONICALLY, your character has just sort fidgeted and stuttered with some banal action like a broken machine.  This makes no sense from a gameplay or story perspective.  It creates a scene so bizarre that it's entirely laughable.

[s0]

How can anyone view Heavy Rain as anything above an interactive version of The Room?

what a story ethan

[mirosurabu]

McDonalds is tasty and it's not unhealthy.

[Manuel Magalhães]

Thanks!